In a healthy society it would be the exact opposite. We would be encouraged to prioritize the journey into health, consciousness and compassion, and our institutions would provide an abundance of support in that journey. People who are unhappy and dysfunctional would not be looked to as leaders but encouraged to become …
I submit that the key to this quest is to be useful to one's own future and the future of their place/environment. If this net future usefulness isn't embodied in humanity, then nature will eventually kill us off anyway with the diminishing resources we so desperately fight over under the guise of 'profits' and 'success'.
Every aspect of modern economic theory is backward: we take resources without paying for them and expect this process to perpetually accelerate, making promises to continue the acceleration (debts) as we do so.
Liberally pursuing whimsical self-improvement without the purpose of contributing more resources/usefulness to our world than we take is a nice fantasy of love and colonialist/consumptionist anthropocentrism, but it isn't sustainable. Seven generation philosophy is a good starting point, but still inadequate for the long term survival of our species as we develop more and more technological power.
We will either have to learn to usefully contribute to our resources or we will competitively eat each other in the end.
In Nature's view, humans only show up to steal office supplies and demand a living as well.
Is it any wonder people are insane when civilization (city-based society) itself separates us from risks and responsibilities to the places that spawned us?